COMPETENCE AND DILIGENCE ARE PRE- PRE-REQUISITES TO THE DUE PERFORMANCE OF

JUDICIAL OFFICE.

135

FA C U L T Y O F CI V I L LA W

Sentence despite the deletion by the appellate court of that portion of the judgment imposing the penalty of imprisonment. In the performance of his duties, Judge Ramos failed to observe that diligence, prudence and circumspection which the law requires in the rendition of any public service. If only Judge Ramos had exercised the requisite thoroughness and caution, he would have noted not only the modification of the monetary awards by the appellate court, but also the deletion of the penalty of imprisonment upon which the Warrant of Arrest and Commitment to Final Sentence that he signed was based (Bayaca v. Judge Ramos,A.M. No. MTJ-07-1676, Jan. 29, 2009).

Duties of a judge under this section

1. A judge must perform his judicial duties with regard to a case where he is not disqualified to do so and, may not divest himself of such case if he is not so disqualified; and

2. A judge shall not inhibit himself simply to avoid sitting on difficult or controversial cases.

Q: An administrative case against Judge Calderon was filed for incurring leaves of absence for almost a straight period of 3 years. In his comment, he claimed that he was suffering from a lingering illness of malignant hypertension which claim was supported by medical certificates prepared by his personal doctor. However, when the court physician conducted some tests, the same contradicted the diagnosis given by the judge’s personal doctor. Is Judge Calderon guilty of gross misconduct?

A: Yes. A judge shall be cautious of his court duties.

Here, the judge should have been aware that, in frequently leaving his station, he has caused great disservice to many litigants and has denied them speedy justice (Re: Leaves of Absence Without Approval of Judge Eric Calderon, Municipal Trial Court Judge of Calumpit, Bulacan, A.M. No. 98-8-105-MTC, Jan. 26, 1999).

Q: Judge Limsiaco was charged with gross ignorance of the law and procedure and violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct when it was established by the records and by his own admission that he decided an ejectment case before his sala more than two (2) years after it was declared submitted for resolution.

Due to his delay of rendering the decision, he was

held guilty of the said charge. He moved for an extension of time to file a motion for reconsideration.

Despite the extension of time given however, Judge Limsiaco failed to file his motion for reconsideration and the required explanation thrice. In another complaint against him for Delay in the Disposition of a Case, the OCA issued an order for him to file a comment for the administrative complaint. Is the respondent judge administratively liable for unethical conduct and gross inefficiency under the provisions of the New Code of Judicial Conduct, specifically, Sections 7 and 8 of Canon 1, and Section 5 of Canon 6?

A: Yes. A judge is the visible representation of the law, and more importantly of justice; he or she must, therefore, be the first to follow the law and weave an example for the others to follow. For a judge to exhibit indifference to a resolution requiring him to comment on the accusations in the complaint thoroughly and substantially is gross misconduct, and may even be considered as outright disrespect for the Court. The office of the judge requires him to obey all the lawful orders of his superiors. After all, a resolution of the Supreme Court is not a mere request and should be complied with promptly and completely. Such failure to comply accordingly betrays not only a recalcitrant streak in character, but has likewise been considered as an utter lack of interest to remain with, if not contempt of the judicial system. A resolution of the Supreme Court requiring comment on an administrative complaint against officials and employees of the judiciary should not be construed as a mere request from the Court. Nor should it be complied with partially, inadequately or selectively.

Respondents in administrative complaints should comment on all accusations or allegations against them in the administrative complaints because it is their duty to preserve the integrity of the judiciary.

Moreover, the Court should not and will not tolerate future indifference of respondents to administrative complaints and to resolutions requiring comment on such administrative complaints. Under the circumstances, the conduct exhibited by Judge Limsiaco constitutes no less than clear acts of defiance against the Court’s authority. His conduct also reveals his deliberate disrespect and indifference to the authority of the Court, shown by his failure to heed our warnings and directives. Judge Limsiaco’s actions further disclose his inability to accept our instructions.

Moreover, his conduct failed to provide a good example for other court personnel, and the public as well, in placing significance to the Court’s directives and the importance of complying with them (Inoturan, v.Limsiaco, Jr., A.M. No. MTJ-01-1362, Feb. 22, 2011).

Sec.1, Canon 6, NCJC

The judicial duties of a judge take precedence over all activities.

Violations of this section often involve a failure to keep records or handle funds in compliance with court rules.

Q: Judge Daguman was charged with neglect of duty in failing to retain a copy and to register with the Local Civil Registrar a marriage contract. In his comment, the judge explained that his failure to do so was occasioned by circumstances beyond his control. He averred that after the wedding ceremony, the copies of the marriage contract were left on top of his desk in his private office where the ceremony was held but after few days, when he gathered all the documents relating to the marriage, the copies were already missing. He also explained that he was not able to inform the parties about the fact of loss as they were already out of the country. Should the judge be disciplined?

A: Yes. A judge is charged with extra care in ensuring that records of the cases and official documents in his custody are intact. Moreover, judges must adopt a system of record management, and organize their dockets in order to bolster the prompt and efficient dispatch of business. Here, the circumstances show that the loss of the documents was occasioned by the carelessness on the part of the judge. The judge should not have left such important documents in his table to be gathered only after few days, instead, he should have devised a filing system in his court so as to avoid such incident (Beso v.Daguman, A.M. No. MTJ-99-1211, Jan. 28, 2000).

Q: X charged Judge Garillo with dishonesty and corrupt practices for allegedly requiring the former to deposit with the latter a sum of money in connection with a pending case in the latter’s sala but failed to give the deposited sums of money to the adverse party. It was also alleged that when X demanded the return of money, the judge failed to return the same despite his promise. Is the judge guilty of serious misconduct?

A: Yes. A judge should always be a symbol of rectitude and propriety, and should always comport himself in a manner that will raise no doubt whatsoever about his honesty. Here, the judge’s act of misappropriating the

money entrusted to him by litigants in connection with a case pending in his court constitutes gross misconduct. Moreover, the judge violated Circular No.

50-95 which provides that, fiduciary collections should be deposited with the Land Bank of the Philippines.

Because of his actuations, the image of the judiciary was impaired (De Pacete v. Judge Garillo, A.M. No.

MTJ-03-1473, Aug. 20, 2003).

Judges should return records upon retirement Since the proper and efficient management of the court is the responsibility of the judge, he is the one directly responsible for the proper discharge of official functions. Thus, a judge is obliged to return to the court the records of the cases filed in his sala upon his retirement (Office of the Court Administrator v. Retired Judge Carteciano, A.M. No. MTJ-07-1664, Feb. 18, 2008).

Service in the judiciary means a continuous study and research on the law from beginning to end. Judges are regarded as persons learned in the law. “Ignorance of the law excuses no one” has special application to judges.

Though good faith and absence of malice or corruption are sufficient defenses, such does not apply where the issues are so simple and the applicable legal principles evident and basic as to be beyond possible margin of error (Corpus v.Ochotoresa, A.M. No. RTJ 04-1861, July 30, 2004).

One who accepts the exalted position of a judge owes the public and the Court the duty to maintain professional competence at all times. When a judge displays an utter lack of familiarity with the rules, he erodes the confidence of the public in the courts. A judge owes the public and the Court the duty to be proficient in the law and is expected to keep abreast of laws and prevailing jurisprudence. Ignorance of the law by a judge can easily be the mainspring of injustice (Villanueva v.Judge Buaya, A.M. No. RTJ-08-2131, Nov.

22, 2010).

Sec. 2, Canon 6, NCJC

Judges shall devote their professional activity to judicial duties, which include not only the performance of judicial functions and responsibilities in court and the making of decisions, but also other tasks relevant to the judicial office or the court’s operations.

Sec. 3, Canon 6, NCJC

Judges shall take reasonable steps to maintain and enhance their knowledge, skills and personal qualities necessary for the proper performance of judicial duties, taking advantage for this purpose the training and other facilities which should be made available, under judicial control, to judges.

137

FA C U L T Y O F CI V I L LA W

Q: Judge Delos Santos averred that Judge Mangino of the MTC Tarlac approved the bail bond for provisional liberty of the accused Santos who was arrested and whose criminal cases were pending in Angeles City. It was also made to appear from the contents of the said bond that the accused appeared before notary public Ancanan in Makati City.

According to the accused, she never went to Tarlac and appeared before said Judge Mangino. She also alleged that she never went to Makati City and appeared before Notary Public Ancanan. Is Judge Mangino guilty of grave misconduct?

A: Yes. Judges should be diligently acquainted with the law and jurisprudence. As an advocate of justice and a visible representation of the law, a judge is expected to keep abreast with and be proficient in the application and interpretation of the law. Here, by mere glancing at the bail bond application, the judge ought to know that he had absolutely no authority or jurisdiction to approve the bail bond of the accused as the case was pending with another court. By approving the bail bond application, the judge failed to exert such conscientiousness, studiousness, and thoroughness expected and demanded of a judge (Judge de los Santos v. Judge Mangino,A.M. No. MTJ-03-1496, July 10, 2003).

Q: Judge Gacott Jr. dismissed an election case on the ground of non-payment of docket fees, although the case had been previously admitted and was deemed properly filed by the original Judge (who inhibited himself due to relationship to one of the parties).

Judge Gacott issued the dismissal order relying on a case (Manchester v.CA) which states that - a case is deemed commenced only upon the payment of the proper docket fees. To his opinion, the required fees in this case were not yet paid by the protestant.

Enojas charged him with gross ignorance of the law.

Is Judge Gacott Jr. guilty of gross ignorance of the law?

A: Yes. A judge is duty bound to adhere to, and apply the recent jurisprudence, and he cannot feign ignorance thereof, because he is required to be an embodiment of, among other things, judicial competence. Here, the ruling relied upon by the judge does not apply to election cases as in the latter case the filing fee is fixed and the claim for damages, to which the docket fess shall be made to apply, is merely ancillary to the main cause of action and is not even determinative of the court’s jurisdiction. It must also be noted that in this case, the original judge already made an order that from the deposit given by the protestant for the expenses of reopening the questioned ballots, an amount shall be allocated for the payment of the required fees. Thus, the election

protest was already properly filed (Enojas v. Judge Gacott, Jr., A.M. No. RTJ-99-1513, Jan. 19, 2000).

Norms of international law has become the concern of judges because they form part of legal standards by which their competence and diligence required by the New Code of Judicial Conduct are to be measured.

A judge may be subject to an administrative fine for inefficiency, neglect, and unreasonable delay in elevating the records of a civil case to the Court of Appeals. A delay of three years in the transmission of court records to the appellate court, where a period of 30 days is required, is inexcusable (Pataleon v.

Guidez,A.M. No. RTJ-00-1525, Jan. 25, 2000).

Q: The records disclose that on February 21, 1994, Cabasares filed a Complaint for Malicious Mischief against a certain Rodolfo Hebaya. The case was docketed as Criminal Case No. 8864 and subsequently assigned to the branch of respondent Judge. As early as February 27, 2002, the case had been submitted for decision, but respondent judge did not pen a decision. He was charged with violation of Section 15 (1), Article VIII of the Constitution and Canon 3, Rule 3.05 of the Code of Judicial Conduct. The judge contend that it have escaped his mind.

A: Judges should meticulously observe the periods prescribed by the Constitution for deciding cases because failure to comply with the said period transgresses the parties’ constitutional right to speedy disposition of their cases. Thus, failure to decide cases within the ninety (90)-day reglementary period may warrant imposition of administrative sanctions on the erring judge. However, the Court is not unmindful of circumstances that justify the delay in the disposition of the cases assigned to judges. When a judge sees such circumstances before the reglementary period ends, all that is needed is to simply ask the Court, with the appropriate justification, for an extension of time within which to decide the case. Evidently,

Sec. 4, Canon 6, NCJC

Judges shall keep themselves informed about relevant developments of international law, including international conventions and other instruments establishing human rights norms.

Sec. 5, Canon 6, NCJC

Judges shall perform all judicial duties, including the delivery of reserved decisions, efficiently, fairly and with reasonable promptness.

respondent Judge failed to do any of these options.

Since the judge retired from service he was only fined (Antonio Y. Cabasares v. Judge Filemon A. Tandinco, Jr.

Municipal Trial Court in Cities, 8th Judicial Region, Calbayog City, Western Samar, A.M. No. MTJ-11-1793, Oct. 19, 2011).

Flag lawyer

Refers to a lawyer of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and people’s organizations (POs) who by the nature of his work already render free legal aid to indigent and pauper litigants. (BAR MATTER No.

2012,Feb. 10, 2009, Section 4a(iii))

Besides possessing the requisite learning in the law, a magistrate must exhibit that hallmark judicial temperament of utmost sobriety and self-restraint which are indispensable qualities of every judge (Rodriguez v. Bonifacio, A.M. No. RTJ-99-1510, Nov. 6, 2000).

Q: Judge Belen was charged with conduct unbecoming of a judge allegedly for humiliating, demeaning and berating a young lawyer who appeared in his sala. It was alleged that when the judge learned that the lawyer was an alumnus of MCQU and not of UP, the judge made the following statement “you’re not from UP”. Then you cannot equate yourself to me because there is a saying and I know this, not all law students are created equal, not all law schools are created equal, not all lawyers are created equal despite what the Supreme Being stated that we all are created equal in His form and substance.” Should the judge be disciplined?

A: Yes. The judge’s sarcastic, humiliating, threatening and boastful remarks to a young lawyer are improper.

A judge must be aware that an alumnus of a particular law school has no monopoly of knowledge of the law.

By hurdling the Bar Examinations, taking of the Lawyer’s oath, and signing of the Roll of Attorneys, a lawyer is presumed to be competent to discharge his functions and duties as, inter alia, an officer of the court, irrespective of where he obtained his law

degree. For a judge to determine the fitness or competence of a lawyer primarily on the basis of his alma mater is clearly an engagement in an argumentum ad hominem. As a judge, he must address the merits of the case and not on the person of the counsel. Judges must be that even on the face of boorish behavior from those they deal with, they ought to conduct themselves in a manner befitting gentlemen and high officers of the court (Atty. Mane v.

Judge Belen, A.M. No.RTJ-08-2119, June 30, 2008).

Q: Judge Ante Jr. was charged with conduct unbecoming of a judge. It was alleged that when the court employee placed the docket book on top of the filing cabinet, the same fell on the floor causing loud sound. Unexpectedly, the judge shouted saying “why did you throw the docket book? You get out of here, punyeta, we don’t need you!” The judge also threw a monobloc chair at the court employee. Should the judge be disciplined?

A: Yes. The judge, for shouting invectives and hitting complainant with a chair displayed a predisposition to use physical violence and intemperate language which reveals a marked lack of judicial temperament and self-restraint - traits which, aside from the basic equipment of learning in the law - are indispensable qualities of every judge (Briones v. Judge Ante Jr., A.M.

No.MTJ-02-1411, Apr. 11, 2002).

Duty of the judge under this section

A judge shall not accept duties that will interfere with his devotion to the expeditious and proper administration of his official functions

NOTE: When a judge, along with two other people, acted as real estate agents for the sale of a parcel of land for which he agreed to give a commission of P100,000 to each of his companions, and after the transaction was completed only gave the complainants P25,000 each, the high Court held that the judge violated the section of the prior Code of Judicial Conduct (Catbagan v. Barte, A.M. No. MTJ-02-1452, Apr. 6, 2005).

Sec. 6, Canon 6, NCJC

Judges shall maintain order and decorum in all proceedings before the court and be patient, dignified and courteous in relation to litigants, witnesses, lawyers and others with whom the judge deals in an official capacity.

Judges shall require similar conduct of legal representatives, court staff and others subject to their influence, direction or control.

Sec. 7, Canon 6, NCJC

Judges shall not engage in conduct incompatible with the diligent discharge of judicial duties.

139

FA C U L T Y O F CI V I L LA W